Idea: Ownership & lifetime escape analysis by variables in reference to

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Sunday, 29 May 2022 at 08:52:55 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> I dislike DIP1000 too. We need to go back to the drawing board 
> it isn't archiving what it should be.

I hope I didn't sound too negative, as I am 100% supportive of 
what you have said in other treads about ARC or adding 
constraints that enable a more advanced GC. (Or possibly my idea 
of having ARC for shared and GC for non-shared).

It is just not fruitful to try to make @system-type code @safe as 
that means Rust or beyond, and those that want that have already 
moved to Rust. And even if D could do the same as Rust then it 
would take 15 years to get there and then we compete with next 
gen static analysis for C++33, Rust 2.0 and Go 3.0… And if D is 
only going halfway to where Rust is then there will be endless 
complaints and people will just switch over to Rust to benefit 
from their ecosystem.

So this angle is a *big drain* on language evolution.

D could achieve so much more by providing some cool features for 
making it easier to write @trusted code that actually can be 
trusted.

All this work people talk about regarding static analysis and 
advanced type system features could be done as optimizations on a 
simpler stable language. With higher payoff.